I'll try to keep my thoughts concise and explain how I feel about each chapter of content:
Chapter 1: I dislike everything about the half races presented here. It's a personal opinion, but a half elf-half dragonborn unleashes a huge number of questions imo.
Chapter 2: New races are always an interesting point. I've created a large number in my "Backgrounds Of" series, so I have a good feeling for how a race is balanced. What you'll find here is a variety of 3rd edition and older content, updated to 5e. Almost too literally for my taste, but they DO seem balanced.
Chapter 3: A huge number of archetypes. I'll comment on all the archetypes based on class. I'm going to comment on these below, so if you're interested scroll down to check those out.
Chapter 4: Ah yes, "full classes". I hate full classes in 99% of cases, as most of the time they're a great concept that works better as an archetype. The archetype design is limited, and that let's us focus on being good. Having to "fill out" a class is a chore and (in my opinion) rarely leads to a good product. Here we have an Artificer (which, to me, should be a wizard archetype), the Death Knight (which to me works as a fighter or paladin archetype), Magus (collective caster, perhaps wizard or sorcerer would enjoy this as an archetype) and finally the Oracle (wizard or warlock).
Chapter 5: Backgrounds are GREAT. And most of what we have here works really well. I disagree with granting weapon proficiencies in a background as a rule, but I don't think this is going to break anything. There's a lot of wording in here that doesn't match up to how WOTC words things, and I think that this chapter would seriously benefit from that sort of verbal clarity.
Chapter 6: Feats! That optional system of customization WOTC seems to forget exists, the feats presented here range in balance and that's bad. Arcane Armor basically grants a wizard a huge AC for the cost of an ability score increase (it sets your AC to 10 + dex + spellcasting ability modifier). That's a bad feat. Conserve Momentum is badly designed, but would be a lot of fun (if you miss and you're using a 'heavy' weapon, you can keep the attack up and try to hit someone else within reach). Looking over these feats, I'd say there's far more bad than good, and I'd probably never recommend these to my players.
Chapter 7: Gear and equipment. All of it seems ok, damage is where you would expect and nothing seems to be too over powered in terms of utility. However armor adds "robes" as a type of armor, and there are some heavier armors (AC 22 "Stronghold" plate). I have to say if this was an all or nothing situation, my players wouldn't be allowed to use any of it. But if they were interested in a single weapon or armor, I'd read over it and go on a case by case basis.
Chapter 8: Traps. A large selection of traps you can mostly drop into any dungeon. This is great.
Chapter 9: Optional rules. Some new conditions, a wide derth of new rules (most of them things that seem fine, like "Critical hits just deal maximum damage", a rule I loved in 4e). Critical on initative is particularly great (advantage on rolls for the first turn, or disadvantage if you roll a 1). Some rules I wouldn't use at all (the old 2e rule of coins grant experience, not combat).
Chapter 10: How to become a lich. It's great, although my table hasn't ever wanted this, the rules here work really really well.
Chapter 11 and 12: New magic items and new spells, I haven't investigated each and every one, but I love the randomized tables for items. Adds new depth to cursed items.
Overall the product is a net positive. There is a huge amount of stuff (and at 129 pages, it should be) but as a DM be wary that not everything here is balanced. As a player, the archetypes range from super exciting to mediocre, but there's nothing that's outright BAD. The feats section could be torn out, but that is a reaction to it analytically. If the feats are fun and don't ruin the fun of others, then they might work at your table.
My only two comments to the author: hire an editor. There were numerous spelling and grammar errors, as well as errors in layout. Also, source some better art. The geometric shapes get boring after a while.
Archetype Review
Barbarian: Path of the Seige weapon, mechanically is fine. The archetype doesn't really make you into a siege weapon except for the 10th level power. Everything else just makes you more of a fighter. The path of the survivor was a much better thought out archetype.
Bard: Path of Destiny is excellent, a fortune telling divining bard. Path of Origami is far more interesting from a story telling perspective, although it's difficult to say if the balance here would be great. My mind is arguing back and forth on if it's too good or too weak.
Cleric: The ooze domain is gross, and is mechanically awkward. Especially the "you can split into two copies of yourself" part, which is also probably the coolest part of the class. Protection is a little more by the book, but it is certainly something that looks like WOTC themselves could have drafted it up.
Druid: Circle of the Scorched Earth is great both narratively and mechanically. Circle of the Sun seems fun, but it really is more about being a plant-person than it is being solar powered. Bad name, great archetype.
Fighter: The guardian archetype is fine. It's like, the defender without needing shields. Feels like too minimal a change for me to really like it, but there's nothing wrong with it. The Warlord is trying to be a battlefield tactician, and for the most part succeeds. I would've liked to see it grant temporary hp earlier, but that's a personal design thought and the mechanics here seem quite balanced.
Monk: Way of the Fundementals is underwhealming. Feels like they glued things to the monk to say it was different, but there's nothing about this narratively that I like. The Third Eye archetype is much more dynamic, mystic type of monk.
Paladin: Oath of the Arcane is something I see designed a lot (Mystra and her Paladins, right?) It's not the best interpretation I've seen, but this is a pretty balanced one. Oath of Engagements is much more of a "Tank" than the traditional Paladin and there's nothing wrong with that.
Ranger: Diabolist is something that immediately drew my attention. An odd name, but it's essentially an undead hunter, with defences specifically tailored to fight those evil foes. Sylvan Knight on the other hand is... muddled. There's little cohesive about it, it's mostly a mess. A balanced mess, but a mess the same.
Rogue: Bounty hunter is great, and does what it says on the tin. While cardthrower will let you live out your fantasies of being Gambit from X-Men, it seems to be of limited use for the most part.
Sorcerer: So I've seen many blood mages stated out as 20 level classes and I've always hated that. The blood mage presented here is PRECISELY what I want in a blood mage, and possibly the best take on the concept I've seen to date. Time magic is always a difficult one to balance, which is why the author here decided to make the archetype just increase how quickly the sorcerer does everything. That works perfectly for me, as I don't want to deal with causality loops at my table.
Warlock: Fathom patron is pretty solid, although as a DM I question why a Kraken or other aquatic horror would create warlocks in the first place. Jotunmagisk doesn't make any sense to me, why or how a giant would be a patron, but the mechanics of the class work well. The invocations here are all excellent (without being so good they're must haves), and there are more than a few for patrons not in this book (a plus, in my opinion).
Wizard: Chaos magic makes me wonder why one wouldn't just make a wild mage, but options are nice. It's more... available... than the wild mage which isn't a bad thing.
|